does frequency really make a difference ?

[Anonymous]

I HAVE READ MANY TIMES THAT THE LOWER THE FREQ. THE DEEPER THE TRANSMITTED SIGNAL WILL PENETRATE THE
GROUND--ALSO-- THE HIGHER FREQ.HAS MORE SENSITIVITY--
MY OPINION IS THAT TODAY'S DETECTORS DON'T USE THE
LOWER FREQ. BECAUSE--THE HIGHER FREQ. GIVE BETTER AIR
TEST AND THAT IS WHAT SELLS MORE DETECTORS!--IT SEEMS
AS THOUGH THE GROUND IS WHAT REALLY MAKES THE DIFFERENCE--WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO ACTUAL DEPTH--I OWN
A 1266 AND A TEJON AT THIS TIME AND I CAN SAY FOR
CERTAIN THAT THE LOWER FREQ. 1266 WILL PENETRATE
DEEPER THAN THE HIGHER TEJON FREQ.--I LIKE THE TEJON
BETTER FOR OTHER REASONS--IT SEEMS TO KNOCK OUT DEEP
IRON BETTER THAN THE 1266--AND IT IS A MUCH QUITTER
RUNNING DETECTOR--I HAVE OWNED AN X5 DETECTOR IN THE
PASS AND THE 1266 WOULD EAT IT FOR LUNCH!
JUST MY OPINION !

 

[Anonymous]

No, it's not the "actual ground" that makes a difference as far as frequency goes (altho it has a good bit to do with things in general principle and theory), nor does lower frequency machines transmit signals "deeper."
In a nutshell, machines of different frequency are more or less sensitive to different things. That's why people who prospect-detect for tiny gold flakes in places where jesus left his sandals spend the fortune they do on detectors made specificially geared to prospecting. Science is what it is, and science says a higher-frequency detector will always be more sensitive to gold, no matter what depth given the same ground covered by a high- and low-frequency detector.
A particular detector's maximum attainable depth is what it is, regardless. And until maybe the FCC relaxes or eliminates its rules and regulations affecting metal detectors, a particular detector's maximum attainable depth will continue to be what it is.
Everyone can post whatever "this one eats that one" arguments all they want, but fact is, a lot of our VLF detectors on the market are no "better" than the next (in fact, what constitutes "better" around these forums is more closely determined by operator skill or just good old-fashioned BS) and all the price we pay for "better" is nothing more than how impressed we are into spending a lot of money on additional bells and whistles.
Scott

 

[Anonymous]

Pick any brand forum and its' users will always be smoking the competition. They will always be finding coins and relics missed by brand x in "hammered" locations. I guess after a while it does gets kind of old. But to be honest, I have been guilty of this myself in the past.
My thoughts on this is a variation of Scotts'.We have simply reached the end of the trail with regards to VLF technology improvements(or those permitted by FCC). New VLF models introduced will not offer dramatic changes in technology and the neverending debate of which VLF is "top gun" will continue.
What will we see in the future? Well I think that pulse induction technology will give VLF technology a run for the money in the future. This will occur when real, reliable discrimination abilities comparable to present day VLFs finally are developed for the P I. Think of it- A coin or relic detector with incredible P I depth and as it is not effected by ground mineralization would offer superior metal I D capabilities. It is not a question of if but when?
Have a good day
George

 

[Anonymous]

My-Expo-Fractor-Super-Dupper-All-Frequency-Laser-Powered Electronic-Thing-A-Ma-Bob with The-Super-Hyper-Active-Magnetic-Digital-Radar/Sonar Screen and Computer-Processed-Target-Identification-System mounted in a Non-Metalic-EMI Shielded Enclosure will penetrate deeper that I care to dig!!!
Just kidding!!!!!
Scott, I like your answer better than mine!
HH
Vince S

 

[Anonymous]

Betcha if you take it down to Texas, you'll be digging twice as deep, too <grin>
Scott

 

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a whole bunch of 'BS' when it comes to manufacturers claims about sensitivity/depth, along with 'our machine has great iron rejection'. I've owned a few, from different manufacturers,at different ends of the price spectrum. I don't buy the sales pitch about the explorer (terribly overpriced)... and as for it's multiple frequency, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it offers you any advantage. Same deal with the DFX, yes, it is a nice looking high-tech machine, but I had one for 2 years, and now I have a 'Deleon' I can't say that I notice any difference in depth, or sensitivity. All I think I need to say is: the Deleon is easy to set up, and you know you're getting the best from it. These all singing all dancing machines have so many 'user adjustments' on them, you never really have full confidence that you have it set up right for the site you are on.